Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like the slavery reference; when is this fool going to call those opposing gay marriage "Nazi's".
I'm not remotely comparing gay marriage to slavery. I was pointing out that simply putting something to a vote is not how this country works, and rightfully so. Disagree?
Quote:
Everyone has the right in the united states to get married.
Not true, and thanks for going there because you make my next point very easy. Two adults cannot currently marry someone of their choosing if they happen to be gay. The provision is the issue.
Again, by your logic, if we were to say marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman of the same race, this would be okay. Everyone has the right to marry correct? They just have to marry within their race.
When you add the qualifier of race......or gender, it becomes discriminatory. I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend.
I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend, either.
I hate these political threads with a passion, but this debate really irks me.
We're talking about consenting adults here. Not children, not animals, so don't even try to bring them into the debate. That's ludicrous.
We are meant to live in a society that accords equal rights to every adult as well as the liberty to live as they choose, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
How on earth does two gay people getting a marriage certificate infringe upon your rights?
You would agree that every adult American has the right to get married, yes? So if there are two people who both want to get married, why the heck should it matter what sex they are?
There is absolutely nothing in the legislation about teaching children in public schools that homosexuality is "normal" or morally "correct." This is the same kind of fear-mongering propaganda that the LDS and other religious groups used to push Prop. 8 in California. It's simply not true. And you'd have to be pretty insecure about your parenting skills to think that your children's moral views are completely defined by what they hear at school, anyway.
I'm amazed that so many people here can't seem to remotely accept the idea that gay marriage is a possibility. Blaming it on self-interested legislators and "gay activists" is the most ridiculous cop-out I've heard. Yeah, and those "civil rights activists" had no right influencing the civil rights legislation in the '60s, either!
I suppose "Live Free or Die" only extends to folks that are living like you. Freedom cannot exist for some and not others. That is a big problem for some.
I know gay marriage is offensive to some people. So is democracy.
PS - Impuning that I indulge in beastiality is getting very close to slander. Be very careful.
One, it can not exist. Marriage already has a definition and can't be redefined to suit, because one group doesn't like it.
Two, it's not about rights. It's about normalizing deviant sexual behavior - trying to equate it with "traditional marriage" Whenever offered civil unions, homosexuals and lesbians come up with some excuse as to why it's not equal.
As far as a slippery slope, of course it's a valid argument. If two men can call themselves married, why not three? Why not a guy and his horse? It's about love, so they say. Or is it about equality? Either way, if we break down a define concept like marriage there is no legitimate reason for denying any form. If there is a reason to discriminate for example against a man, a woman and a chicken union, then there is equal reason to discriminate against two men.
A horse/chicken cannot give consent, likewise neither can a child, or someone under duress.
I see no reason that adults of any persuasion cannot engage into a legal/social contract with one another provided they are consenting to said legal/social contract. Regardless of what my personal and religious views are doesn't change the ability of consenting adults to enter into relationships with one another.
Now- a church (private body) shouldn't (and isn't) required to conduct the ceremony- that's a given. But as far as being recognized under the law (public body) well yeah...same rights/terms for all.
I mean realistically how far do you want this to go? First limitations on marriage, then limitations on firearms, then the ability of the government to quarter soldiers in your home... Not good, we need a strict interpretation of the constitution and equal application of rights with no qualifiers. People are real quick to contest rights when they disagree with them or it doesn't directly affect them...but once those rights are gone- they will eventually target rights that are important to you.
One, it can not exist. Marriage already has a definition and can't be redefined to suit, because one group doesn't like it.
Are you really going to argue that this country has never re-defined a word in it's 200+ year history?
I didn't realize definitions were so set in stone. Remember when an eligible voter was defined as a white, property owning male? Imagine the nerve of those people trying to change that definition.
Are you really going to argue that this country has never re-defined a word in it's 200+ year history?
I didn't realize definitions were so set in stone. Remember when an eligible voter was defined as a white, property owning male? Imagine the nerve of those people trying to change that definition.
How is it not?
Unlike your voter example. Nobody here is being discriminated against. Homosexuals are eligible to get married -- they just have to marry a woman.
Actually, my voter example is perfect. The discriminatory criteria in my example was gender and race. With gay marriage, it happens to be sexual orientation. How is one criteria discrimination, and the other not?
Answer this question please....seriously, answer it. It's a yes or no question......
Do you think outlawing interracial marriages is discriminatory?
Yes, outlawing interracial marriage is discriminatory, because like you said it's based on race.
Black, asian, whatever are still male or female, they share the same DNA as their caucasian counterparts are are entitled to the be treated equally to caucasians.
Homosexuality on the other hand has nothing to do with that. A homosexual male is still a male and is still eligible to marry... a woman. Just because that person chooses not to, is not discriminatory.
I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend.
Why is so hard for people to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word "marriage"? Why is it so hard for people to realized that the definition of marriage in 37 states and at the Federal level is one man and one woman of legal age? Why is it so hard for people to accept simple things like the meaning of a word?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
